Sidwell Construction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

I don't know if this is intended to be serious, but it's actually spot on having watched the two processes closely. It's especially the case with respect to carbon emissions, which SFS surprisingly doesn't seem to care much about.

- Non-SFS/GDS parent with no dog in this fight

Why do you say that SFS doesn't seem to care much about carbon emissions?

Because they did the bare minimum that they were required to do in terms of vehicle trip limitations, instead of voluntarily matching the higher standards that GDS agreed to implement (putting aside whether or not GDS had a choice).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

I don't know if this is intended to be serious, but it's actually spot on having watched the two processes closely. It's especially the case with respect to carbon emissions, which SFS surprisingly doesn't seem to care much about.

- Non-SFS/GDS parent with no dog in this fight

SFS has engaged with the community for years around future contsruction and had a strong neighborhood agreement before the plans changed because of the purchase of 3939 Wisconsin Ave. It is simply not true that the relationship is not community friendly.

And where carbon is concerned, the school has retrofitted the campus to be as green as the DC Government will allow, and there is no reason to believe that future construction won't be net energy and carbon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

I don't know if this is intended to be serious, but it's actually spot on having watched the two processes closely. It's especially the case with respect to carbon emissions, which SFS surprisingly doesn't seem to care much about.

- Non-SFS/GDS parent with no dog in this fight

Why do you say that SFS doesn't seem to care much about carbon emissions?

Because they did the bare minimum that they were required to do in terms of vehicle trip limitations, instead of voluntarily matching the higher standards that GDS agreed to implement (putting aside whether or not GDS had a choice).

Based on anything other than your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

I don't know if this is intended to be serious, but it's actually spot on having watched the two processes closely. It's especially the case with respect to carbon emissions, which SFS surprisingly doesn't seem to care much about.

- Non-SFS/GDS parent with no dog in this fight

Why do you say that SFS doesn't seem to care much about carbon emissions?

Because they did the bare minimum that they were required to do in terms of vehicle trip limitations, instead of voluntarily matching the higher standards that GDS agreed to implement (putting aside whether or not GDS had a choice).

Based on anything other than your opinion?

It's not based on my opinion. It's based on the respective plans. Go to the public sites and read them for yourself. GDS has bound itself to about half of the total trips per student as SFS has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP... tongue in cheek comments aside, it really is true that GDS has handled their expansion/consolidation in a much more community friendly way than Sidwell. If you've followed the respective ANC processes, you know this is true. I think this is why so many people refer to GDS as the most authentically "Quaker" school in DC.

I don't know if this is intended to be serious, but it's actually spot on having watched the two processes closely. It's especially the case with respect to carbon emissions, which SFS surprisingly doesn't seem to care much about.

- Non-SFS/GDS parent with no dog in this fight

SFS has engaged with the community for years around future contsruction and had a strong neighborhood agreement before the plans changed because of the purchase of 3939 Wisconsin Ave. It is simply not true that the relationship is not community friendly.

And where carbon is concerned, the school has retrofitted the campus to be as green as the DC Government will allow, and there is no reason to believe that future construction won't be net energy and carbon.

The "community engagement" reflects that the school sits at the edge of an ANC boundary, and is within one that has a lot of commercial space. So there aren't many active "neighbors" to engage with, and this particular ANC is pretty lenient. In any event, carbon emissions aren't a NIMBY-type issue - it's one that affects the larger community, and this particular ANC isn't in the business of holding SFS to particularly high standards. Sad but true.

As for the construction itself, SFS is fine in that regard (as it was with the middle school building), and I'm not criticizing that. However, the larger carbon issue are all the daily vehicle trips to schools, and SFS doesn't want to burden its community with having to do things like carpool.

It is what it is, but if that's where the community's mindset is at, just own it instead of patting yourselves on the back over things where you're not willing to walk the walk once it becomes burdensome. Again, no dog in this fight, but I at least respect that the GDS community was willing to step up and take on a much more restrictive plan.

[Anonymous]

People already carpool (well, when not in COVID) both voluntarily and as organized by the school.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Why dont these schools use more bussing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no plans to start construction soon?

It appears that the answer is no.

LOL at this forum. People arguing about carbon emissions, arguing about GDS, arguing about ANCs, etc but no one answering the basic question.

My presumption is that construction would probably take 2 years from start to finish, so if they are looking to move in fall 2024 they will start in sometime 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no plans to start construction soon?

It appears that the answer is no.

LOL at this forum. People arguing about carbon emissions, arguing about GDS, arguing about ANCs, etc but no one answering the basic question.

My presumption is that construction would probably take 2 years from start to finish, so if they are looking to move in fall 2024 they will start in sometime 2022.

Years ago when we considered applying we asked about the time line and were told it wouldn't start in our DC's time there (class of 22).

[Anonymous]

It was pushed back to fall 2026 opening. But that was pre-Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was pushed back to fall 2026 opening. But that was pre-Covid.

In August 2019 they said fall 2024 “depending on fundraising”.
https://www.sidwell.edu/about/news/news-detail/~board/homepage-news-panel/post/designing-the-future

Curious how the fundraising is going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was pushed back to fall 2026 opening. But that was pre-Covid.

That’s what we were told, pre-Covid. It’s likely later now.

[Anonymous]

Lot's of GDS patting itself on the back, but the changes made at GDS site were much larger than the changes that will happen at Sidwell. They are modifying the building they purchased, GDS tore down a building and quadrupled the number of floors on that space. Plus, they moved pk-8 over vs Sidwell moving Pk-4. And I believe the number of students per grade is also smaller at Sidwell. This means adding far fewer numbers of families to the Sidwell campus when compared to GDS. Just saying...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was pushed back to fall 2026 opening. But that was pre-Covid.

That’s what we were told, pre-Covid. It’s likely later now.

So the main delay is financial? Acquiring the Washington Home and having it sit idle for a decade because you spent the renovation funds in acquiring another building doesn’t seem like great financial planning. Now they have no money to renovate and cannot sell the LS campus to defray costs until they do. Plus, they are not collecting any revenue on these buildings. Decisions like these can potentially have serious long term consequences for financial sustainability.

[Anonymous]

COVID is superseding everything else. The school is fine financially, stop with the dooming.